Readers' comments

Perhaps more interesting under the title money and votes is the CNN exit polls analysis. Romney won by 8%, 16x the margin of his overall loss, among all Americans with an income of 50,000 or more.

We have heard plenty about how those old uber rich people going for republicans so their money isn't taxed more, but 50,000 is hardly uber rich in America. It's actually quite middle class, especially in cities or where cost of living is higher. 50,000 is the amount that elementary school teachers, auto mechanics, professional secretaries, bottom-rung government workers, etc will make in a year mid career, not the lawyer, business, academia elite class by any means. If you work hard and responsibly, regardless of your IQ or education level, you can get a job that will pay in the 50k range per year; you don't need a privileged upbringing for this. So essentially, among all Americans who are career minded and have full time jobs outside the arts or minimum wage entry-level-ranks, Romney won by 8%, and yet still lost the election.

This is somewhat concerning; if the segment of society that supports itself and 93% of the government revenue base does not have it's views represented in politics, there is potential for a feedback loop in which more and more benefits are voted in until there is nothing left to spend. I don't advocate a return to the days when only land owners could vote, by any means, but there is some logic in suggesting that those who are paying for a government have the biggest say in how it is managed; isn't that what "by the people" means. It's possible Obama is simply a popular candidate, but if a long-term situation is created in which self-supporting classes views' do not equal the overall electorate's views, America is in for heaps of trouble. Inequality and a bad economy sucks for decent moral democracy.

This election costs Americans at least $2 billions. Chances are the first 6 to 9 months of 2013 will see the winner pondering how to reward the big donors, allot lucrative posts to supporters, organize the team of advisers and so on -- little time for anything else, let alone honoring campaign promises. (btt1943, mtd1943)

Negative, negative, negative!! As a foreigner who have seen this election with much interest, I feel sorry for American people cause you guys are gonna end up with having one of the negative guys, Congratulation!

Negative, negative, negative!! As a foreigner who have seen this election with much interest, I feel sorry for American people cause you guys are gonna end up with having one of the negative guys, Congratulation!

From the "Number of campaign visits" staples I conclude that the candidates don't consider Minnesota and Michigan Swing states at all. Funny enough they don't think North Carolina is a swing state either?

How does this qualify as a federal election when the candidates campaign in less than 1/4 of the states? How much disproportionate government goodies goes to those 12 states? Time to abolish the electoral college ... the remaining 38 states surely have enough votes for the constitutional ammendment.

Could, if you believe that money will flow evenly in a system without the electoral college. I actually think the opposite. Without it, candidates would only focus on the biggest states and ignore the multitudes of smaller ones. In terms of the percent of states being ignored, I think it would go up...

How is that worse than the situation now? Currently, America's electoral machine ignores small AND big states that don't split close to 50-50. Which states are pandered to depends entirely on random historical and geographical circumstance. How is that any better than pandering to the states where the most voters live?

Small, rural areas and states already "punch above their weight" in the House and (especially) in the Senate. In my opinion, the presidency should break with this and be determined by a simple popular vote. I think it's absurd that a man can be named president in a supposed bastion of democracy when someone else gets more votes than him.

If you look at the fine print on the key the visits are only counted from September 7th to November 5th. I also have to agree with EricBro, eliminating the electoral college would only mean that the candidates would campaign in the large population centers.

Whereas there may always be safe jurisdictions such that campaigning in those areas would not produce a sufficient change in voting patterns to make the cost worthwhile, elimination of the electoral college suddenly makes plurality in those areas an important consideration. The economics of voter behaviour modification becomes equalized accross the country. Certainly, a candidates ability to reach many more people for far less cost exists in large cities, but isn't that how it should be? ... the predominance of Ohio and Florida in presidential electoral calculus is simply undemocratic. Under the current system, Republicans in New York and California are better off decamping and serving to get out the vote in Ohio because their vote in their home state is valueless.

If it is simply popular vote then states are meaningless, other than plurality within a state actually becomes important. Remembering Florida in 2000 ... 1 vote equals more than 5% of the electoral college votes. Al Gore won the total US wide popular vote but lost the election due to the abilities of Republican litigators. How is that democracy? How will the voice of the people be heard tonight if Romney wins the popular vote but loses the election due to arcane electoral calculus?

The quality of the advertisement would appear to matter at least as much as the money spent on volume. The anti-Goldwater "count-down" ad only received limited airtime, but could be said to have "gone viral" in its day through news reporting. It was a low blow, but one of the most effective television commercials of all time. Hastily put together low quality ads do not work and are probably a waste of money.

Suggestion: Your Ohio visits graphic appears misleading as the units are too small to see clearly and since you make the red column 1 unit wider than the blue column they appear close when in reality the red is almost double. The columns should be the same width, otherwise a quick glance makes them appear-incorrectly- rather close (despite the # being presented as well).

Also, does this count superpac/outside spending that's clearly benefiting one side? Does it count dem/gop national committee spending on behalf of a candidate or just the campaigns directly?

"in the United Kingdom, all paid political advertising is banned from television and radio"

"Several other European countries maintain total bans on paid political advertising on television and radio, including France, Ireland and Belgium"

"Mexico strictly limits radio and television advertising during presidential election campaigns according to a complicated formula."

My wife who is Japanese says that Japan also doesn't allow political advertizing (on TV at least), or they just don't do it (maybe out of tradition? She is not political so don't get a clear answer on the subject)

Personally I would prefer to give as much liberty as possible. HOwever, I also think some method or methods are needed to enforce truth in advertising.

Like force the candidates to show documented proof/evidence substantiating a broadcast before it runs. Or allowing an opposing side free time to answer a contested ad, after each broadcast (thus incenting the broadcast companies to keep ads under control)

And having the sponsors clearly identify themselves at prescribed cadence, and including content such as the HQ location, head of the organization maybe something else, so carpet baggers could be called out

Romney has outspent Obama in all states indicated except one:
New Hampshire.
And this is excluding independent PACS spending--largely Republican puppets--which may actually exceed both candidates in spending.

Republican advertising spending may be close to DOUBLE Democratic spending in swing states--ask any tv watcher in OH, FL, or VA.
_______________________________

The Rule was the candidate who outspends his opponent wins 90% of the time.

Clinton('92 and '96) and Obama('08) were out spent by their Republican opponents, but still won.

This Rule is about as obsolete as the Phone Answering Machine.
______________________________

95% of advertising is ignored and wasted.

It is like throwing spaghetti at the wall...most of it falls on the floor and gets eaten by the dog. Little specks stick. Sometimes a noodle or bit of a meatball. But it sure was a waste of a meal!

5% is effective and convincing.
You don't know which is 5%.
_______________________________

Republicans can NOT buy an election...better to have a strong candidate and real ideas.

Great interactive chart. I just get the impression that if Obama wins Ohio and holds onto PA, MI and Wisconsin, then the election will be very hard for Romney to win (maybe couldn't in such a case). Seems in the end the Mid-west firewall is the tipping point for which way the election goes.

Assume, for the sake of discussion, that the polls are correct. It would appear that the campaign of the guy who has been touting his business experience is getting noticably less return per ad and per visit. Not to mention less value for money. Interesting.